Reading through the latest Pew research paper, A Portrait of Early Internet Adopters, at the same time as talking with colleagues from a variety of government agencies over the previous week, I was reminded how the challenges that social media present to government are neither particularly new nor require especially innovative or radical management responses.
It is tempting to look at the rise of social media and assume that government is singularly unprepared to meet the challenges that the (socially) connected workplace have delivered to us. And if you restrict your field of vision to the technology, there is a good case to be made.
However, viewed in the context of the ongoing evolution of the public management system, here in New Zealand anyway where I believe we have a good record of evolving and developing in response to these environmental pressures, it is a much more tractable problem. It is the speed of that adaption that is the central issue.
The wave
As the Pew report points out, (online) social networking is not some novel behaviour that, along with rounded corners and reflective logos, arrived with Web 2.0. Usenet, bulletin boards and discussion lists provided media for this sort of activity as soon as people started connecting computers to each other. What has changed for organizations is the volume of participation.
As it has become increasingly painless to network online – you no longer require any real technical know-how, just an email address and some self-belief in the significance of your opinions – more of us are doing it. It is inevitable that this trend would extend to public sector employees, particularly the digital natives.
To give you a (purely anecdotal) picture of the change, in 2006 I had roughly four of five agency queries about social media, for that year. From late 2007 to today, I am averaging about one a week.
The strategy gap
The problem, as such, is not that public sector organizations are not adapting to the change; the fact that there is so much interest in understanding social media is a good indication they are. The problem is the rate at which they are adapting, and the consequences of that lag.
Government agencies naturally have a long-term strategic view; this is driven by statutory as well as practical considerations. The Statement of Intent looks forward three years, as do business plans and budgets. How many of you, given the chance, would have written social media into your business plans in 2005/06?
The tension we are all experiencing now, between the early adopters in agencies who expect to be able to use these networks as a matter of course and management struggling to understand and adapt to the shadow workplace, is an expression of the conflict between a shifting strategic perspective and tactical imperatives.
Managers are trying to adapt their strategy within a set of, in the immediate term, unforgiving constraints – like, for example, the Public Records Act and other accountability structures, and simultaneously manage the demands of tactical and operational contingencies that are reactions to, in most cases, ‘guerilla’ implementations that begin their cycle outside the corporate framework.
Let me give you an example (if you are still reading after that last paragraph, you have earned it): managers in Agency X discover that an enthusiastic employee has set up a Facebook group for the staff. They are now using it to communicate with each other across the geographically dispersed organization, to share knowledge and to build social and professional relationships.
Tactically, it is providing some value. Strategically, it is a nightmare. Why? There is no defined purpose, no exit strategy and, from a risk management point of view, they couldn’t have picked a worse application. It is, putting it quite conservatively, a crisis waiting to happen…
On the other hand, what this requires of managers is a rethinking of their strategic approach. They need to begin planning immediately to migrate the behaviour (which, to be clear, is both inevitable and desirable) to a medium, or possibly media, that is consistent with the security, legislative and cultural norms of the public sector. But, even with complete management support and the requisite funding (ie., in a perfect world) that won’t happen in a hurry. That’s your strategy gap in action.
And this sort of thing is not restricted to a few agencies, it is happening all over the public sector.
Change management
Public sector managers should all be conversant and comfortable with change. To narrow the strategy gap, what needs to happen is for senior managers to recognize that social media are a symptom of a wider cultural change, and to begin revising their strategies accordingly. Agencies should begin to consult, communicate and involve staff in the process now, because if the gap widens too much, our people will —literally— leave us behind.
As I noted at the outset, this doesn’t require any specialized management knowledge or technical skill; it is just another expression of the (hopefully commonplace) need to constantly manage change. What it does require, however, is a sense of urgency, a willingness to engage and a focus that is on people, rather than technology.
Photo: iMorpheus









10 Comments
great call on the facebook question. they say that you shouldn’t put anything in an email you wouldn’t put on a postcard.
facebook communication is probably more akin to sky-writing…
Nice article. No chance of public servants using Facebook in SA Govt – access was switched off across the sector a couple of weeks ago! And MySpace. Interesting times…
Thanks Fergus. I am no fan of blocking access to social sites because it deals with the symptom not the cause, but Che is right: government business shouldn’t be conducted over these sorts of channels…
It just reinforces the need for agencies to adapt their business processes, and soon.
You know, there’s nothing new about early adopters not being able to use their stuff in the workplace either. ‘Next generations’ have always caome into the workplace expecting things to happen at their speed, with their tools. I’m sure early adopters of the typewriter had an uphill battle against fountain pens. But the world doesn’t necessarily work to their expectations, whether they’re ‘digital natives’ or not, whether they’re in the public sector or private. This is not necessarily a bad thing (imagine if we’d all rushed out and instituted HD-DVD systems across the public service) as it lets the market simmer down and standardise a little. And the world won’t end if the ‘digital natives’ don’t get to use chat during work hours. Maybe there’ll be a little more time for contemplation of the issues rather than instant reaction.
Perhaps, instead of calls to action regarding speeding up the rate of adoption, we should be looking more diligently at the risks involved (and I don’t just mean the openness of the communications) and whether these things are really in the public interest, or just stuff the public is interested in, at the moment.
Thanks Mark, for the challenge. I think it is critical that we distinguish between the behaviour, which I point out is desirable for the organization/culture, and the media – which in this instance, is inappropriate (for the reasons you state, namely risk).
The (counter) analogies you raise miss my point, simply because neither are social technologies. The public management system will continue to evolve with changes in wider society, we can actively manage that change by planning for it, or we can ignore it and abrogate our responsibility for managing that risk.
You jest, sir. The public management system has never evolved on the basis of what’s going on in the world outside
And you miss my point: “more” and “faster” != “better”, necessarily.
PS your server has not been adjusted for DST
yes, i agree. but at present the new zealand public service is so risk-averse that we squabble about instituting bulletin boards for public servant-citizen interaction.
that’s a 20 year old technology there…
Fergus, we all know that SA Govt public servants are using Facebook, they are just doing it at home now. What we do not know is whether they have created a Facebook group for colleagues and past members of the SA Govt, and if so, are they discussing the organisation, and if so, how in depth does the conversation go.
I agree with Jason that Facebook this is “a nightmare” for communications managers. However, I do not see how migrating the behavior is inevitable. These Facebook conversations are walking the tightrope between personal and professional lives, giving managers no control (unless the individuals fall off the tightrope, then their managers will be waiting like alligators to catch them).
The only defense is providing staff with clear guidelines as to what is acceptable.
Thanks Matt. Regarding the inevitability of the migration, I didn’t mean that as a binary distinction. I was signalling that, in order to build new knowledge management capability into the organization, agencies should institute tools that support staff to exhibit these behaviours in the .govt namespace.
That way the agencies benefit from increased knowledge retention and improved cultural practice and the individuals benefit because they are effectively off the tightrope – its only us alligators that lose out…
You are absolutely right about the guidelines.
One Trackback
[...] Read the full post here: http://www.psnetwork.org.nz/bl.....-adopters/ [...]